This is almost getting to be a trend over the last few weeks -- lead editorials in The New York Times that almost could have been written as a front-page story or diary here at Daily Kos (aside from being somewhat more polite and pulling a few punches here and there). For all of the paper's flaws, their official editorial position is -- as best as I can tell -- the most closely aligned with our own among the biggest traditional media outlets.
Today's lead, double-length editorial, "Abdicate and Capitulate", takes the Senate Democrats -- and Chuck Schumer in particular -- to task for their behavior during the Mukasey nomination. The editorial board of the Times seems about as exasperated as we are here regarding the weak response to clearly unacceptable nominees, and is similarly unwilling to go along with the mealy-mouthed excuses offered up.
See below the fold for what I'm talking about.
As I mentioned in the lede, it's been barely three weeks since I last worte of another Times editorial that could have been ghost-written by someone here. Perhaps not suprisingly, the subject of that editorial was also an attack on the Democrats' weakness in falling in behind President Bush's agenda of shredding the Constitution and refusal to stand up for our Party's necessary and popular positions. Now here we go again, it seems.
The editorial begins,
It is extraordinary how President Bush has streamlined the Senate confirmation process. As we have seen most recently with the vote to confirm Michael Mukasey as attorney general, about all that is left of "advice and consent" is the "consent" part.
Once upon a time, the confirmation of major presidential appointments played out on several levels — starting, of course, with politics. It was assumed that a president would choose like-minded people as cabinet members and for other jobs requiring Senate approval. There was a presumption that he should be allowed his choices, all other things being equal.
Before George W. Bush’s presidency, those other things actually counted. Was the nominee truly qualified, with a professional background worthy of the job? Would he discharge his duties fairly and honorably, upholding his oath to protect the Constitution? Even though she answers to the president, would the nominee represent all Americans? Would he or she respect the power of Congress to supervise the executive branch, and the power of the courts to enforce the rule of law?
In less than seven years, Mr. Bush has managed to boil that list down to its least common denominator: the president should get his choices.
All well and (not so) good, but at least now with the Democrats back in control of the Senate, we should be in a position to demand better, right? Obviously, we all know the answer to that.
Democrats offer excuses for their sorry record, starting with their razor-thin majority. But it is often said that any vote in the Senate requires more than 60 votes — enough to overcome a filibuster. So why did Mr. Mukasey get by with only 53 votes? Given the success the Republicans have had in blocking action when the Democrats cannot muster 60 votes, the main culprit appears to be the Democratic leadership, which seems uninterested in or incapable of standing up to Mr. Bush.
The editorial goes on to rake Sen. Schumer over the coals for engaging in "precisely the sort of cozy rationalization" that has allowed the Bush Administration to get away with essentially everything they've ever wanted to do. The piece also debunks Schumer's claim that without Mukasey as Attorney General, the Department of Justice would be in thrall to someone under the control of Dick Cheney (or, more to the point, of David Addington, whom I have long regarded as the most dangerous man in the Administration). As the Times mentions, only someone who is "already in the grip of that 'extreme ideology'" would be unable to answer the Judiciary Committee's questions regarding waterboarding.
The editorial finishes by raising other points that have often been made in this space:
The claim that Mr. Mukasey will depoliticize the Justice Department loses its allure when you consider that he would not commit himself to enforcing Congressional subpoenas in the United States attorneys scandal.
All of this leaves us wondering whether Mr. Schumer and other Democratic leaders were more focused on the 2008 elections than on doing their constitutional duty. Certainly, being made to look weak on terrorism might make it harder for them to expand their majority.
We are not suggesting the Democrats reject every presidential appointee, or that the president’s preferences not be taken into account. But Democrats have done precious little to avoid the kind of spectacle the world saw last week: the Senate giving the job of attorney general, chief law enforcement officer in the world’s oldest democracy, to a man who does not even have the integrity to take a stand against torture.
Now, if we can only get the news division to stop playing the "he said, she said" game of attempted 'balance' when confronted by right-wing mendacity or out and out Administration falsehoods. Here with Mukasey, for example, were perfect opportunities: waterboarding (and other extreme interrogation techniques) are already banned at multiple levels, from the Army Field Manual, through several existing federal statutes (making any new law against the procedure unnecessary as well as futile, since Bush would simply veto the measure), to multiple international conventions and treaties to which the United States is a party, thus raising them even above domestic statutes.
Given this appearent news division philosphy at the NYT of providing both "sides" to controversial political issues, I fear that the editors on the news side of the fence are not unlike the Senate Democrats, and have been cowed into fearing the accusations that the right would launch against it if they actually called a spade a spade. Would that Executive Editor Bill Keller display some of the same leadership and dynamism shown by Andrew Rosenthal over on the editorial side. Here's to hoping.